Friday, November 13, 2015

Fewer Swing Voters

MP Fewer Swing Voters I am preparing to leave for another weekend of hunting deer and pheasants, so I thought I would leave you with 2 topics.
"I agree that there are fewer voters today who might conceivably find either the D or R candidate worthy of consideration. I used to be a bit of a swing voter during my early years in Oregon. I was basically a Democrat, but I voted for Mark Hatfield for Senate and other Republicans for state offices. No longer. I cannot think of one state or national Republican who could win my vote today.

There are more voters who find neither party attractive. They think that the Republicans are in Cloud Cuckoo Land and that the Democrats have been co-opted by Big Money, in which case they might want to vote for a Green or Democratic Socialist candidate. Or else they think that the Republicans are too into foreign intervention and big money and the Democrats are for fostering dependence, in which case they might want to vote Libertarian.

When 50% of the population nationwide doesn't vote at all, we have a problem, which is not of lack of swing voters but of lack of voters, period. Low turnout is a sign of disengagement and fatalism, a hopeless sense that no positive changes, only negative changes, are in our future, no matter who is in office." Karen

"I agree that many think most politicians are similar and that their vote has little impact. However the "fatalism" piece is too dark for me. I personally think that most citizens are pretty satisfied with the status quo and don't want any big changes to the Left or Right. It seems to be only those on the Far Left and Far Right that spend a lot of energy complaining about America.

It is likely that more than a billion world citizens would love to live in the GREAT country that is America, yet folks who live here say silly things like "that no positive changes, only negative changes, are in our future, no matter who is in office." I will never understand that level of dissatisfaction with the greatest country in the world.

I learned quite a while back that I choose whether to look at the 5% of things in my life that were "bad or could be better" or the 95% of things in my life that were good or great. Focusing on the 5% led to unhappiness, anger, frustration and arguments, whereas focusing on the 95% led to happiness, gratitude, satisfaction and open communication. Choices Choices." G2A
Thoughts?

15 comments:

Laurie said...

I think a lot of people (~60%) are disgusted with congress and don't vote, but otherwise they are pretty happy Charts of the Day: Americans Seem to Be About As Happy As Ever

I think the happiness level would increase if more people paid attention and voted for democrats. We could move up in the happiness rankings from our current poor showing of 15th happiness country. It seems that as the wealthiest country we should do better.

John said...

See Page 26, I think the author is a bit off...

"For the record, we came in 15th. That's toward the low end of rich countries, but still pretty happy."

1. Switzerland (7.587)
2. Iceland (7.561)
3. Denmark (7.527)
4. Norway (7.522)
5. Canada (7.427)
6. Finland (7.406)
7. Netherlands (7.378)
8. Sweden (7.364)
9. New Zealand (7.286)
10. Australia (7.284)
11. Israel (7.278)
12. Costa Rica (7.226)
13. Austria (7.200)
14. Mexico (7.187)
15. United States (7.119)
16. Brazil (6.983)
17. Luxembourg (6.946)
18. Ireland (6.940)
19. Belgium (6.937)
20. United Arab Emirates (6.901)
21. United Kingdom (6.867)
22. Oman (6.853)
23. Venezuela (6.810)
24. Singapore (6.798)
25. Panama (6.786)
26. Germany (6.75)
27. Chile (6.670)
28. Qatar (6.611)
29. France (6.575)
30. Argentina (6.574)
31. Czech Republic (6.505)
32. Uruguay (6.485)
33. Colombia (6.477)
34. Thailand (6.455)
35. Saudi Arabia (6.411)
36. Spain (6.329)
37. Malta (6.302)
38. Taiwan (6.298)
39. Kuwait (6.295)
40. Suriname (6.269)
41. Trinidad and Tobago (6.168)
42. El Salvador (6.130)
43. Guatemala (6.123)
44. Uzbekistan (6.003)
45. Slovakia (5.995)
46. Japan (5.987)
47. South Korea (5.984)
48. Ecuador (5.975)
49. Bahrain (5.960)
50. Italy (5.948)
51. Bolivia (5.890)
52. Moldova (5.889)
53. Paraguay (5.878)

jerrye92002 said...

I don't believe it. Have you ever noticed how UNhappy Democrats and liberals are, like, ALL the time? Even when they "win" they're unhappy, because reality just refuses to bend their way. Or, as Rush Limbaugh says, "Liberals live in constant fear that somebody, somewhere, is having a good time."

As for voting, I frankly wish FEWER people would vote. I hate the idea (and support the legal principle) that there should be no barriers to legal voters, such as literacy tests or poll taxes, but I wish we had a test like "If you cannot name at least one of the candidates for this office, you can't vote in the race." People who haven't paid any attention to politics for two whole years should not get to decide who runs our lives for the next two.

Anonymous said...

"As for voting, I frankly wish FEWER people would vote. I hate the idea (and support the legal principle) that there should be no barriers to legal voters, such as literacy tests or poll taxes, but I wish we had a test like "If you cannot name at least one of the candidates for this office, you can't vote in the race." People who haven't paid any attention to politics for two whole years should not get to decide who runs our lives for the next two."

How very Fascist of you, jerry.

I wonder if I should be surprised.

Joel

John said...

Joel,
His test seemed pretty simple and logical.

Or do you think people randomly filling out a bubble because some name sounds like someone they knew as a child makes sense.

I would hope people entering the polling place could name at least a couple of people on the ballot. Otherwise why are they there again?

Anonymous said...

"I would hope people entering the polling place could name at least a couple of people on the ballot."

So would I, but it's not my business to control other people's legal behavior. I know Conservatives think differently.

Joel

John said...

Joel,
Please note that Jerry supports "the legal principle" that everyone gets a vote like you do.

Doesn't it make you the least bit frustrated when uninformed voters pick a name based on name recognition instead actual candidate qualifications and/or platform?

jerrye92002 said...

Joel, technically we are not a democracy, we are a representative republic and it's a darn good thing. Do you honestly believe that the average citizen has the time, inclination and ability to properly vote on every issue that comes before Congress? Do you really believe that every citizen casts a fully informed vote in every race?

It's not fascist, by the way, and shame on you for saying so. I will, however, accept "technocratic"-- the theory that those who understand the problems should be deciding and implementing the solutions.

jerrye92002 said...

Joel, doesn't it make you mad when people just pull the lever for everybody with an "R" behind their name? Do you really think they have good and ample reasons for every one of those decisions? Are Republicans ALWAYS the better candidate?

Anonymous said...

"...the theory that those who understand the problems should be deciding and implementing the solutions."

And its ancillary, the golden rule...that those with the gold make the rules. But we're talking about voting, and you'd be happy to suppress the votes of those people that you decide don't measure up to your standards. And if not you, who? Who would you trust with making those rules?

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

" and you'd be happy to suppress the votes of those people that you decide don't measure up..." -- Joel

Show me where I've said anything of the sort. I haven't. I merely suggest that allowing any uninformed boob to vote (not one with differing opinions) may have gotten us to our current sorry state. View the movie "Idiocracy" to see where we're headed.

I know no such test can reasonably or legally be imposed, nor should it. I said that already. I'm merely saying that voters should (by some magic) be better informed before voting, and we would all be better off.

And you didn't answer the question: Are Republicans ALWAYS the best candidate, in every race?

Anonymous said...

"Show me where I've said anything of the sort. I haven't. I merely suggest that allowing any uninformed boob to vote..."

Those people don't measure up to your idea of good citizenship. THAT'S where you said it.

I don't need to answer idiotic questions.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

OK, what is YOUR idea of good citizenship? Would it include those people who choose to vote straight Republican every time, regardless of who it is or what they stand for? Remember, there are a lot of them. It's the same idiotic question, and you cannot claim I am wrong until you answer it. Well, you can, but I'll accuse you of hypocrisy and inconsistency.

Anonymous said...

Ideally, every citizen would have mastery of the issues and the positions of every candidate on the ballot. It's highly unlikely that would ever happen. But you're the one who has posited that we place barriers to voting, not me. If people want to vote straight Republican, that is their right. Why would you stand in their way?

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

Yes, ideally, and that is what I have suggested. Less ideally but far better than the current circumstance would be if MORE people went to the polls informed, and any means of promoting that, short of prohibiting dumb-voting, would be beneficial, IMHO. Any suggestions? BTW, right now my estimate of those properly informed is about 10%.